Chattisgarh High Court
Khageshwar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.11
18:58:10
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 759 of 2025
1 - Khageshwar Yadav S/o Mukund Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Police Station Chandrapur, District - Sakti (C.G.)
2 - Alekhram Yadav S/o Mukund Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Police Station Chandrapur, District- Sakti (C.G.)
3 - Chandrashekhar Yadav S/o Mukund Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Police Station Chandrapur, District- Sakti (C.G.)
4 - Nirakar Yadav S/o Shobhalal Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Police Station Chandrapur, District- Sakti (C.G.)
5 - Deepak Yadav S/o Gourishankar Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Police Station Chandrapur, District- Sakti (C.G.)
6 - Dileshwar Yadav S/o Gourishankar Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Police Station Chandrapur, District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Magistrate/Collector, Sakti,
District- Sakti (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
2
10.06.2025
1. Both the victims appeared through virtual mode from DLSA
Janjgir-Champa and raised their objection in granting anticipatory
bail to the applicants.
2. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the SC/ST
Act") has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated
18.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, (Atrocities) Janjgir,
District janjgir-Champa in Bail Application No.153/2025 whereby
the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of BNSS
apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.144/2024
registered at Police Station Chandrapur, District Sakti (CG) for
the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 333,
191(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(द)(ध) of SC/ST Act has been
rejected.
3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 27.12.2024 at about
9:20 p.m. when complainant Lukeshwar Sidar opened the door of
his house on hearing knocking on main gate, the appellants took
him inside the house and assaulted him with hands, fists and
sticks. When the complainant's sister-in-law Bilasani Sidar came
to intervene, the appellants beat her too. On report being lodged
by the complainant, offence under the aforesaid sections has
been registered against the appellants.
3
4. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the
offences registered under BNS are bailable and of general nature.
The offence under Atrocities Act is not made out. The FIR does
not disclose that the crime was committed on the basis of caste.
The Police had registered an excise case against the nephew of
the complainant, Abhishek Sidar, because all his family members
sell liquor illegally. Therefore, a false report has been lodged
against the appellants suspecting them to have complained to the
Police against the complainant. Since, the case under Atrocities
Act is not prima facie made out as per the FIR, anticipatory bail
should be granted. In support of his argument, learned counsel for
the appellants placed his reliance on Prathvi Raj Chouhan Vs.
Union of India and Others.1
5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the
anticipatory bail, submits that a case of atrocity is made out
against the appellants and they are not eligible for grant of
anticipatory bail considering the bar under section 18 of the
Atrocities Act. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. The incident is said to have taken place on 27/12/2024. On their
behalf, a copy of the FIR dated 13/09/2024 in respect of the case
registered by the Police against the nephew of the complainant,
Abhishek Sidar, under section 34(2) of the Excise Act has been
submitted as Annexure A/2.
1 (2020) 4 SCC 727
4
8. The application under Section 482 of the BNSS filed by the
appellants for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected by the
trial Court taking note of the bar provided under Section 18 of the
Act of SC/ST Act. It is, however, to be noted at this stage that the
bar so provided therein was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs.
State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2018) 6 SCC
454, and arrived at a conclusion that if the person is able to show
prima facie case that he has not committed any atrocity and the
allegations have been made mala fidely, then the bar provided
therein would not be attracted. Paragraphs 50, 51, 53 and 55 are
relevant for the purpose, which read as under :-
"50. We have no quarrel with the proposition laid down in
the said judgment that persons committing offences
under the Atrocities Act ought not to be granted
anticipatory bail in the same manner in which the
anticipatory bail is granted in other cases punishable with
similar sentence. Still, the question remains whether in
cases where there is no prima facie case under the Act,
bar under Section 18 operates can be considered. We
are unable to read the said judgment as laying down that
exclusion is applicable to such situations. If a person is
able to show that, prima facie, he has not committed any
atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the
allegation was mala fide and prima facie false and that
prima facie no case was made out, we do not see any
justification for applying Section 18 in such cases.
Consideration in the mind of this Court in Balothia (1995
3 SCC 221) is that the perpetrators of atrocities should
not be granted anticipatory bail so that they may not
terrorise the victims. Consistent with this view, it can
certainly be said that innocent persons against whom
there was no prima facie case or patently false case
cannot be subjected to the same treatment as the
persons who are prima facie perpetrators of the crime.
51. In view of the decisions in Vilas Pandurang Pawar
(2012 8 SCC 795) and Shakuntla Devi (2014 15 SCC
521), the learned ASG has rightly stated that there is no
5
absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie
case is made out inspite of validity of Section 18 of the
Atrocities Act being upheld.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
53. It is well settled that a statute is to be read in the
context of the background and its object. Instead of literal
interpretation, the court may, in the present context,
prefer purposive interpretation to achieve the object of
law. Doctrine of proportionality is well known for
advancing the object of Articles 14 and 21. A procedural
penal provision affecting liberty of citizen must be read
consistent with the concept of fairness and
reasonableness.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
55. In the present context, wisdom of legislature in
creating an offence cannot be questioned but individual
justice is a judicial function depending on facts. As a
policy, anticipatory bail may be excluded but exclusion
cannot be intended to apply where a patently mala fide
version is put forward. Courts have inherent jurisdiction to
do justice and this jurisdiction cannot be intended to be
excluded. Thus, exclusion of Court's jurisdiction is not to
be read as absolute."
9. While considering the aforesaid judgment, it has been held further
by the Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chauhan vs.
Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 at
paragraph 32, which reads as under :-
"32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and
anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J.
has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials
exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the
inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.”
10. In the FIR registered in the case at hand, there is no mention of
any particular caste. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the
bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act is not found to be valid as
there is no mention of any particular caste in the FIR. In such a
situation, considering the fact that about 06 months have passed
since the incident took place and there is all possibility of taking
6
time in completion of investigation and trial, this Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case in which the appellant should be
extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
18.03.2025 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of
the appellants in connection with the aforesaid crime number, they
shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one local surety for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the concerned arresting/investigating officer,
with the following terms and conditions:
(i) that the appellants shall make themselves available for
interrogation/medical test etc. before the concerned
investigating officer as and when required;
(ii) that the appellants shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the appellants shall not act in any manner which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv) that the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date given to them by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link